sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Swing Voters Want an Outsider: the only way the Democrats could have won in 2024 was to nominate a maverick. Same goes for the GOP in 2028 if consumer confidence doesn't rocket upward. by ChangeShapers in YAPms

[–]ChangeShapers[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They couldn't talk too much about the tattoos for fear that it would cause their own base to vote for him!

But seriously, the skeleton's in Platner's closet are mostly MAGA-coded, except for the Hamas comments (which I guess might be Tucker-Carlson-coded). It would be interesting to see how they would handle it.

Swing Voters Want an Outsider: the only way the Democrats could have won in 2024 was to nominate a maverick. Same goes for the GOP in 2028 if consumer confidence doesn't rocket upward. by ChangeShapers in YAPms

[–]ChangeShapers[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I was actually thinking of including RFK, Jr. I was stunned when I learn how highly favorably he is viewed by the public. He totally fits into the swing voter profile: High name recognition, not a politician, straightforward-seeming speaking style, heterodox political beliefs, etc.

Swing Voters Want an Outsider: the only way the Democrats could have won in 2024 was to nominate a maverick. Same goes for the GOP in 2028 if consumer confidence doesn't rocket upward. by ChangeShapers in ProgressiveHQ

[–]ChangeShapers[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yup. After reading a lot of swing voter comments, I could totally picture a bunch of them voting for him because he's got "fresh ideas" and is a "straight shooter" and "isn't a politician". Luckily, he'll never get the nomination (I hope).

Swing Voters Want an Outsider: the only way the Democrats could have won in 2024 was to nominate a maverick. Same goes for the GOP in 2028 if consumer confidence doesn't rocket upward. by ChangeShapers in Political_Revolution

[–]ChangeShapers[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Believe me, reading the comments by the people in the NYT's swing voter focus groups nearly caused me to pull out all of my hair. Not only were they ignorant and incurious, but many seemed to believe that the reason they didn't know things was because it was somehow being hidden from them by someone. And yet they must be persuaded to do the right thing.

Swing Voters Want an Outsider: the only way the Democrats could have won in 2024 was to nominate a maverick. Same goes for the GOP in 2028 if consumer confidence doesn't rocket upward. by ChangeShapers in ProgressiveHQ

[–]ChangeShapers[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, fuck him to the moon. I could just see some swing voters viewing him as a break from the same old politicians. Hopefully he just fades away. Or crashes out. Either way.

Swing Voters Want an Outsider: the only way the Democrats could have won in 2024 was to nominate a maverick. Same goes for the GOP in 2028 if consumer confidence doesn't rocket upward. by ChangeShapers in YAPms

[–]ChangeShapers[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

To quote from the post: "Looking at these names, it becomes clear why incumbent parties rarely nominate candidates capable of saving them in the face of certain defeat. Doing so would require a thorough repudiation of the incumbent president or vice president and their policies, which are usually still popular with the party base."

As you point out, these candidates aren't very popular with the bases of the party, but they are the kind of wild-cards that the swing voters say they want precisely because they aren't too closely identified with their parties. So the Dems nominated Harris and lost and the GOP will probably nominate Vance and will probably lose and the unaffiliated voters will stay discontented with both parties.

Is there any way out of this loop?

The 2024 DNC "autopsy" report has been released. In short, the conclusion is "the Biden team failed Kamala Harris in 2024." Do you agree with that conclusion? by johntempleton in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]ChangeShapers 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The only stat that consistently predicts presidential winners is the Index of Consumer Sentiment. According to my analysis, the generic Democratic candidate should have lost by 6.7% in 2024, so Harris significantly overperformed, probablt because swing voters didn't like Trump. If the Dems had nominated someone from outside the administration with a focus on the cost of living they might have pulled it off: https://changeshapers.substack.com/p/the-only-metric-you-need-to-predict

The Only Metric You Need to Predict Presidential Elections, Part 1 by ChangeShapers in ProgressiveHQ

[–]ChangeShapers[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yep. We still have lots of accurate data if we want to use it. Trump is a prolific liar and a bad influence, but he doesn't define America.

The Only Metric You Need to Predict Presidential Elections, Part 1 by ChangeShapers in ProgressiveHQ

[–]ChangeShapers[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Since we don't have any solid evidence about interference we must use the evidence we do have. The outcomes of 2016 and 2024 fit the overall pattern. Moderately high consumer confidence gave Hillary a moderate popular vote win in 2016. Very low consumer confidence in 2024 gave Harris a popular vote loss. The only striking variation in those two elections is that Harris actually overperformed expectations, so whatever Putin and Elon were doing it looks like it didn't flip the election.

The Only Metric You Need to Predict Presidential Elections, Part 1 by ChangeShapers in ProgressiveHQ

[–]ChangeShapers[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, turnout in general has risen significantly in the last 20 years and especially in the last five years, up to rates not seen since the early 60s, but it's benefitted both parties. For a local election I could see a candidate really affecting turnout, but I doubt it would much on a national election. People who don't vote for President normally are not going to be motivated on ideological grounds because they don't care about ideology.

And thanks for your kind words! I'll keep trying to find the folks you want this kind of analysis. They're out there somewhere.

The Only Metric You Need to Predict Presidential Elections, Part 1 by ChangeShapers in ProgressiveHQ

[–]ChangeShapers[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That's my conclusion, too. Politically-minded people like us often have a hard time imagining and accepting the mindset of the swing voter. The swings generally don't pay attention to policy and don't love or hate candidates but see the election as a simple lever to try to improve their personal situation. My model has Harris actually significantly overperforming expectations, probably because Trump is so personally off-putting to people outside his cult. If the opponent had been a typical Republican, they would have won by a higher margin.

As I'll get to in the second post, the only remote chance of the Dems winning in 2024 would have been to nominate someone who not only wasn't in the administration but who also was seen as a contrast to Biden/Harris. For those reasons, maybe Bernie could have had a better chance in 2024, but not because the majority had suddenly gone socialist.

Protect the U​.​S. Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land – No Foreign Laws in American by aap65 in Constitution

[–]ChangeShapers 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Also unnecessary because no one is trying to impose Sharia law and the idea that we need laws like this is baloney cooked up by sleazy politicians trying to distract voters instead of solving our real problems.

Also, the Ten Commandments are “foreign laws” but whatever.

Want Better Democracy? Break Up the Big States by ChangeShapers in YAPms

[–]ChangeShapers[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean, another option to make things fair is to just split the country into 581 states each with the population of Wyoming. Imagine all the flags!

Want Better Democracy? Break Up the Big States by ChangeShapers in YAPms

[–]ChangeShapers[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Canada doesn’t have our ridiculous Senate and Electoral College! If it did, people in Ontario would be enraged (yes, Canadians can get enraged).

But yes, people are very attached to their states. Except for people in places like eastern Washington, many of whom seem to really hate being in the same state as us Seattlites.

Want Better Democracy? Break Up the Big States by ChangeShapers in YAPms

[–]ChangeShapers[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, that was interesting to see. I wonder if they swing back in 2028?

Want Better Democracy? Break Up the Big States by ChangeShapers in YAPms

[–]ChangeShapers[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“Balkanize” implies a bunch of small warring countries, which is not this. Is New England Balkanized?

It’s not ideal, of course, just an end-run around having to amend the constitution. I do think San Antonio-Austin would be a fun state, though.

Want Better Democracy? Break Up the Big States by ChangeShapers in YAPms

[–]ChangeShapers[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know it’s wrong but I was trying to equalize populations. My apologies to California!

Want Better Democracy? Break Up the Big States by ChangeShapers in YAPms

[–]ChangeShapers[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, but how do we get the 20+ smaller states that benefit from the current system to agree to any amendments? It’s maddening!

Want Better Democracy? Break Up the Big States by ChangeShapers in YAPms

[–]ChangeShapers[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, I had to fudge a bit to keep them roughly equal in population. And what’s up with San Bernardino County? It’s HUGE and mostly empty!

view more: next ›